REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 786-789 OF 2003

State of Punjab …. Appellant

Versus

Manjit Singh & Ors. …. Respondents

JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1.In these criminal appeals the issue that arises for our consideration is

whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the maximum

penalty of death sentence is called for or life sentence which is awarded to

the respondents by the High Court would meet the ends of justice.

2.One Sewa Singh, the deceased, was the Municipal Commissioner of

Municipal Committee, Sirhind City. He also used to recite Kirtan in the

Gurdwara Sahib whereas his son Rachhpal Singh alias Happy, Inderjit

Singh and Kuldeep Singh, were also working as Sewadars in Gurdwara

Bara Sirhind, which was quite near the house of Sewa Singh. Kamaljit

Singh and Manjit Singh were previously working as Sewadar in the

Gurdwara. While working as such they had developed illicit relations with

Bhinder Kaur, the wife of Sewa Singh, the deceased. The said illicit

relation became known to Sewa Singh, the deceased, and his son Rachhpal

Singh alias Happy and they did not appreciate the said illicit relationship

and sometimes used to beat Bhinder Kaur and told her in specific terms

not to indulge in such activities. They also restrained accused Kamaljit

Singh and Manjit Singh to come to their house. Bhinder Kaur did not like

the aforesaid attitude of her family and was also fed up with the

harassment caused to her and told about such mal-treatment and

harassment caused, to the accused Kamaljit Singh and Manjit Singh.

Having known about the attitude and mal-treatment being meted out to

Bhinder Kaur, they came on the fateful day of 26.6.1994 to the house of

Sewa Singh when he was sleeping in his house whereas his son Rachhpal

Singh alias Happy was sleeping in the Gurdwara Bara Sirhind. Having

reached the house of Sewa Singh, the accused Kamaljit Singh armed with

Kirpan and accused Manjit Singh armed with Khanda, killed Sewa Singh

in his house whereas the remaining three persons namely Rachhpal Singh

alias Happy, Inderjit Singh and Kuldip Singh were killed in the Gurdwara

by them.

3.Consequent to the aforesaid murders, a First Information Report (for short

‘the FIR’) was registered bearing FIR No. 46, on 26.06.1994 at about 2.30

2

a.m. on the statement of Joginder Singh who approached the Police

Station, Sirhind and got recorded the FIR to the effect that he was working

as an electrician and had been living near Gurdwara Bara Sirhind and that

on the intervening night of 26.06.1994, when he was sleeping in his house,

at about 1.30 a.m. he heard a noise from the house of Sewa Singh, the

deceased which was located quite near his house, he went outside and saw

that the light in front of the house of Inderjit Singh was on and two Sikh

youths armed with Kirpans stained with blood were shouting that they had

finished Sewa Singh, the deceased, his son Rachhpal Singh alias Happy

and their supporters and they would not spare anybody who comes to their

help. It was also stated in the FIR that he along with other neighbours

went to the house of Sewa Singh and found him dead. They left Bhinder

Kaur near the dead body and went to the Gurdwara Sahib where they

found other three persons murdered namely Rachhpal Singh alias Happy,

Inderjit Singh and Kuldip Singh. While Rachhpal Singh alias Happy and

Inderjit Singh were lying murdered in the room of the Gurdwara Sahib,

Kuldip Singh was found killed in the Varandah of the Gurdwara.

4.After registering the FIR the police started investigation during the course

of which they arrested Kamaljit Singh, Manjit Singh. Bhinder Kaur was

also arrested. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted

3

charge-sheet against the aforesaid accused persons. The court framed

charges against the accused persons under Sections 302/34 IPC read with

Section 120-B IPC, for causing death of Sewa Singh, Rachhpal Singh

alias Happy, Inderjit Singh and Kuldeep Singh.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined its witnesses whereas

the defence did not produce any witness. The trial court, after conclusion

of the trial and on appreciation of the evidence on record, passed a

judgment and order finding both the accused persons namely, Kamaljit

Singh and Manjit Singh guilty of the offences under Section 302 read with

Section 120-B IPC and sentenced both of them to death with direction that

they be hanged by the neck till death subject to, however, the confirmation

by the High Court. As regards Bhinder Kaur, it was held by the trial court

that she was one of the co-conspirator for killing Sewa Singh and his son

Rachhpal Singh @ Happy. The trial court, after taking into consideration

that now she is left all alone in the family and that she never intended that

Inderjit Singh and Kuldeep Singh be done to death, sentenced her to

undergo imprisonment for life under Section 120-B IPC read with Section

302 IPC.

6.Since in respect of two of the accused persons death sentence was

awarded, reference was made to the High Court for confirmation of the

4

death sentence. On the other hand, all the three accused persons filed

separate criminal appeals before the High Court.

7.All the aforesaid three criminal appeals and the reference were taken up

together for consideration and after appreciation of the evidence on record,

the High Court upheld the order of conviction passed against all the three

accused persons. The High Court, however, after considering the facts and

circumstances of the case held that the case in hand cannot be called as

rarest of the rare cases. It was held by the High Court that both the

appellants (respondents herein) who have been sentenced to death do not

deserve capital punishment. Consequently, their sentence of death was

converted into a sentence of imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.

10,000/- each.

8.The State of Punjab being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of alteration of

the sentence of the two accused persons namely Kamaljit Singh and Manjit

Singh filed the present appeals on which the notice was issued. The

appeals were listed for hearing and we heard the appeals with the

assistance of Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Punjab.

9.It was submitted before us by the counsel appearing for the appellant-State

that it was a brutal murder of four persons by the two accused and,

5

therefore, the High Court was not justified in converting the death

sentence awarded by the trial court into the imprisonment for life. He also

submitted before us that reliance of the High Court on the decision of this

Court in Om Prakash v. State of Haryana [(1999) 3 SCC 19] is

misplaced. It was submitted by him that death of four persons in the

present case was one of the aggravating causes. There being other factors

such as the nature of offence, manner, motive and other aggravating

factors surrounding the case which when considered together would

definitely make out a case of rarest of rare case.

10.In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for

the appellant-State, we have examined the records and relevant case laws.

11.The Supreme Court has held succinctly in several decisions that for a case

to be regarded in the rarest of rare category, fact situation has to be

exceptional, like after committing one offence another offence is

committed so as to cover up the first offence. In Bachan Singh v. State of

Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 684] this Court for the first time used this category

(rarest of rare) for awarding death penalty. However, the Bachan Singh

(supra) decision did not elaborate the criteria for identifying “rarest of

rare” cases. In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab [(1983) 3 SCC 470] this

Court laid down the guidelines for the application of the “rarest of rare”

6

rule to specific cases. The guidelines were couched in fairly broad terms

that relate to several considerations such as: “Manner of commission of

murder”, “Motive for the commission of murder”, “Anti-social or socially

abhorrent nature of the crime”, “Magnitude of crime” and “Personality of

victim of murder”.

12.With regard to the quantum of punishment to be awarded to persons found

guilty of offences dealt with in the IPC, the Code confers a wide discretion

on the court in the matter of awarding appropriate punishment by

prescribing the maximum punishment and in some cases both the

maximum as well as the minimum punishment for the offence. Though no

general guidelines are laid down in the Code for the purpose of awarding

punishment, generally the judicial discretion of the court is guided by the

principle that the punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of

the offence having regard to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances

vis-à-vis an accused in each case. In such situation, the obligation of the

court in making the choice of death sentence for the person who is found

guilty of murder becomes more onerous indeed.

13.On the question of awarding the sentence for the offences for which life

imprisonment as well as the death sentence is prescribed, sub-section (3)

of Section 354 CrPC enjoins that in the case of sentence of death, special

7

reasons for such sentence shall be stated. As already noted, the provision

was elaborately discussed by this Court in Bachan Singh (supra). The

Court pointed out the change in the policy of sentencing in following

manner: (SCC p. 734, para 151)

“151. Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

marks a significant shift in the legislative policy underlying the

Code of 1898, as in force immediately before 1-4-1974,

according to which both the alternative sentences of death or

imprisonment for life provided for murder and for certain other

capital offences under the Penal Code were normal sentences.

Now, according to the changed legislative policy which is patent

on the face of Section 354(3), the normal punishment for murder

and six other capital offences under the Penal Code, is

imprisonment for life (or imprisonment for a term of years) and

death penalty is an exception.”

14.For ascertaining the existence or absence of special reasons in the context,

it was observed that though, in a sense, to kill is to be cruel and, therefore,

all murders are cruel, yet such cruelty may vary in its degree of culpability

and it is only when culpability assumes the proportion of extreme

depravity that special reasons can legitimately be said to exist. It was

emphasized that life imprisonment was the rule and death sentence was an

exception and that death sentence must be imposed only when life

imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having

regard to the relevant circumstance of the crime and provided that the

option to sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously

8

exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and

all the relevant circumstances.

15.In Machhi Singh (supra) a three-Judge Bench of this Court having

considered the guidelines laid down in the above-noted case added that the

following two questions might be asked and answered as a test to

determine the rarest of rare case in which death sentence could be

inflicted: (SCC p. 489, para 39)

“(a) Is there something uncommon about the crime which

renders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls

for a death sentence?

(b) Are the circumstances of the crime such that there is no

alternative but to impose death sentence even after according

maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances which

speak in favour of the offender.”

16.Further, in Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar [(1989) 3 SCC 5] it was

laid down that unless the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the

offender reveal that the criminal was a menace to the society and the

sentence of life imprisonment would be altogether inadequate, the court

should ordinarily impose a lesser punishment and not the extreme

punishment of death which should be reserved for exceptional cases only.

17.The above discussed legal principles have been followed consistently in

numerous judgments of this Court. Whether the case is one of the rarest of

9

the rare cases is a question which has to be determined on the facts of each

case. It needs to be reiterated that the choice of the death sentence has to

be made only in the rarest of the rare cases and that where culpability of

the accused has assumed depravity or where the accused is found to be an

ardent criminal and menace to the society and; where the crime is

committed in an organized manner and is gruesome, cold-blooded, heinous

and atrocious; where innocent and unarmed persons are attacked and

murdered without any provocation.

18.Reverting back to the present case, it is no doubt true that both the

respondents behaved in a most cruel manner, killed four persons while

they were asleep. Three, out of the four deceased persons, were murdered

within the precincts of a Gurdwara. But, there are certain mitigating

circumstances in the case which cannot be lost sight of. Both the

respondents, as is disclosed from the records, had illicit relationship with

the third accused namely Bhinder Kaur and when she narrated her woes

and the harassment, both the accused persons, as it appears from the

record, lost their balance and acted in a cruel manner by entering into the

house of Sewa Singh-deceased in the dead night and killing Sewa Singh in

the house and other three sons in the Gurdwara. Thereafter, they also gave

threat to everybody outside the house by stating that they have killed those

10

persons and, therefore, no one should dare to come near them. This

behaviour on the part of the accused-respondents would show that they

acted in the manner being driven more by infatuation and also being

devoid of their sense on coming to know about the ill treatment meted out

to Bhinder Kaur. Though the act of the accused is a gruesome one but it

was a result of human mind going astray. No doubt, they acted in a ghastly

manner for which, in our considered view, they have been adequately

punished. The High Court has given its reasons for not awarding the death

sentence and also relied upon a Supreme Court decision for the purpose.

19.In view of the aforesaid discussion, keeping in view entire facts and

circumstances of the case, the reasons given by the High Court for altering

and converting capital sentence to a sentence of life are found to be cogent

and reasonable. We do not intend to interfere with the said judgment and

order passed by the High Court. Therefore, the life sentence awarded to

all the three accused persons by the High Court stands upheld.

20.In the result, the appeals stand dismissed.

……………………………J.

[Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]

…….……………………...J.

[Dr. B.S. Chauhan]

11

New Delhi,

May 28, 2009

12